Copyright

by

Hillel Ofek

2013

The Report Committee for Hillel Ofek

Certifies that this is the approved version of the following report:

The Honor Motive in International Relations>

APPROVED BY

SUPERVISING COMMITTEE:

Peter Trubowitz

Thomas L. Pangle

Supervisor:

The Honor Motive in International Relations

by

Hillel Ofek, B.A.

Report

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of

The University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Arts

The University of Texas at Austin

May 2013

iv

Abstract

The Honor Motive in International Relations

Hillel Ofek, M.A.

The University of Texas at Austin, 2013

Supervisor: Peter Trubowitz

This report aims to broaden the horizon of research questions in international

relations by encouraging a greater appreciation for the complexity of individual and

collective motivations. More specifically, the report focuses on why the honor motive is

ignored in the discipline and why it deserves more attention.

v

Table of Contents

Introduction ..............................................................................................................1

What Is Honor? ........................................................................................................3

The Puzzle of Honor in IR .......................................................................................4

Honor in Theoretical Context ..................................................................................8

The Roots of Modern Honor ...........................................................................9

The Limits of Rational Choice Theory in International Relations ...............12

The Limits of Conventional IR Paradigms ...................................................15

Conclusion .............................................................................................................20

Bibliography ..........................................................................................................21

1

Introduction

The intellectual tendency of modern, enlightened, liberal individuals and societies

is to regard honor as outmoded and archaic. Honor is associated with the relic of

aristocracy, tribalism, stratified hierarchies, and ridiculous dueling. The notion of honor,

however, has a long and important lineage in international relations. In Thucydides’

Peloponnesian War, the Athenians famously claim that they are compelled to war by

“fear, honor, and profit.”1 In fact, according to the Greek historian, honor was the very

catalyst for the 27-year-long war between Athens and Sparta. Thucydides describes how

the commercial Corinthians meddled in a strategically reckless quarrel “out of hatred” for

their adversary, the Corcyraeans, who posed no threat to the Corinthians’ economic or

security interests. The reason for this hatred was that the Corcyraeans insulted the

Corinthians and “treated them contemptuously.”2 In response, the Corinthians sought a

long and bloody conflict to punish those they viewed as their disrespectful subordinates.

Today, by contrast, the field of international relations has lost sight of honor as a

motivation. Conventional paradigms and research methods in IR typically bracket any

examination of motivations. Instead, scholars focus on establishing predictive accuracy

through parsimonious theories. These theories assume states are motivated not by honor

but only by what Thucydides called fear and profit, or security interests and economic

gain. These contemporary theories dismiss or altogether avoid the idea that foreign policy

is shaped by a spirited moral defense or assertion of one’s individual or national

1 Victor Davis Hanson and Robert B Strassler, The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the

Peloponnesian War (Free Press, 1998), 1.75-6.

2 Ibid., 1.25-1.35.

2

worthiness, a desire to escape shame and humiliation, or a prideful desire to avenge

wrong and restore one’s reputation and moral ideals. When scholars do acknowledge the

presence of concern for esteem, they typically reduce the phenomenon to an underlying

concern for greater power, security, and economic gain.

This report aims to broaden the horizon of research questions in international

relations by encouraging a greater appreciation for the complexity of individual and

collective motivations. More specifically, the report focuses on why the honor motive is

ignored in the discipline and why it deserves more attention.

3

What Is Honor?

Honor is the assertion or defense of a principle or cause that transcends expedient,

materialistic calculations.3 Honorable behavior speaks with the pretense of universal

principles of justice or self-worth. But honor is always arbitrary in the sense that

honorable behavior is attached to one’s own concern—whether person, family, property,

tribe, nation, or ideology. Honor connects one’s private circumstance with a principle and

its worthiness. Even though honor is the source of self-concern, it is different from the

concern of self-preservation and wealth because such material considerations are

subordinated or instrumental to attaining a more intangible desire, such as victory,

autonomy, or respect. Honorable behavior is done out self-respect, rather than principally

out of fear of punishment or a reward that goes beyond the personal gratification inherent

in the action.4 Thus honor can restrain prudential calculation in order to look for the

greater gratification that is attained by fulfilling moralistic and indignant desire.5 While

codes of honors are conventional and conditioned by society, honor is a universal

phenomenon of human nature.6

3 Harvey Claflin Mansfield, Manliness (Yale University Press, 2006). 65. Peter McNamara, The Noblest

Minds: Fame, Honor, and the American Founding (Rowman & Littlefield, 1999)., 214.

4 Sharon R Krause, Liberalism with Honor (Harvard University Press, 2002).

5 Thomas L Pangle, "Interpretive Essay," Thomas L. Pangle The Laws of Plato, New York: Basic Books

(1980).

6 See Krause, Liberalism with Honor.

4

The Puzzle of Honor in IR

Contemporary theories of international relations tend to simply avoid or even

dismiss “intangible,” moralistic motivations of individuals and nations. Many positivist

IR theories regard moralistic language and beliefs as a kind of rhetorical or psychological

shell that either reflects, conceals, or is reducible to underlying structural, material, and

strategic variables and interests.7 While there is a small (and perhaps growing)

recognition among IR scholars of the importance of status, prestige, and reputation, there

have been no serious attempts to demonstrate the existence and importance of honor as an

irreducible moralistic motivation.8 In one sense, the discipline of IR merely reflects the

broader cultural and intellectual tendency in the West to regard honor as an antiquated

and even patriarchal concept that is no longer a relevant or worthy goal.9

And yet, when considering concrete cases, it is difficult to deny the perennial and

irrepressible intuition that honor is a central motive in conflict. One striking example of

“everyday” honor is France’s national soccer team loss during 2006 World Cup final. In

that match, France’s star player, Zinedine Zidane, was expelled in the 110th

minute of the

final game after head-butting an Italian opponent who insulted his sister and mother.

Years later, Zidane said he “would rather die” than apologize to his victim. As he put it,

7 J. Goldsmith and E. Posner, "Moral and Legal Rhetoric in International Relations: A Rational Choice

Perspective," U Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper, no. 108 (2000).

8 R. Wolf, "Respect and Disrespect in International Politics: The Significance of Status Recognition,"

International Theory 3, no. 1 (2011): 92; B. O'Neill, "Mediating National Honour: Lessons from the Era of

Dueling," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte

Staatswissenschaft (2003); R.N. Lebow, "Fear, Interest and Honour: Outlines of a Theory of International

Relations," International Affairs 82, no. 3 (2006); S. Joshi, "Honor in International Relations," (Working

Paper, 2008); E. Abrams and D. Kagan, Honor among Nations: Intangible Interests and Foreign Policy

(Ethics & Public Policy Center, 1998).

9 James Bowman, Honor: A History (Encounter Books, 2007).

5

he “could never have lived with himself” had he remained in the game instead of

punishing a man who insulted the honor of his family.10

Even, or especially, in cases of war—when necessities of material power and

security concentrate the mind—concern for one’s honor appear in the opinions and

justifications of statesmen. For example, Thomas Jefferson justified rejection of the

Barbary Pirates’ demand for tribute in part on the humiliation it would bring the United

States. Indeed, his war against them was justified as an effort to “chastise their

insolence.”11 During the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, nearly all of the major delegates

revealed a desire to subject Germany to a punitive peace. Despite the fact that the terms

and enforcement mechanisms did not significantly weaken Germany (and arguably, in

some respects, strengthened the regime), Germany recognized the punitive tone of the

treaty and perpetually sought to overturn the humiliation.12 During the Vietnam War,

Lyndon Johnson escalated U.S. involvement on the grounds that “Our national honor is at

stake in Southeast Asia, and we are going to protect it.” When the war turned into a

10 Zinedine Zidane: I'd "rather die" than say sorry - ESPN Soccernet

Espnfc.com (2010) Zinedine Zidane: I'd "rather die" than say sorry - ESPN Soccernet. [online] Available

at: http://espnfc.com/world-cup/story/_/id/749212/ce/uk/?cc=5901 [Accessed: 30 Apr 2013].

Zidane is glad he was sent off in 2006 World Cup final | M24 Digital

M24digital.com (2010) Zidane is glad he was sent off in 2006 World Cup final | M24 Digital. [online]

Available at: http://m24digital.com/en/2009/12/22/zidane-is-glad-he-was-sent-off-in-the-2006-world-cup-

final/comment-page-1/ [Accessed: 30 Apr 2013].

11 Allan Dafoe and Devin M Caughey, "Honor and War: Using Southern Presidents to Identify

Reputational Effects in International Conflict," Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley (2011).

12 Donald Kagan, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace (New York: Doubleday, 1995).

M. Trachtenberg, "Reparation at the Paris Peace Conference," The Journal of Modern History (1979). Sally

Marks, "The Myths of Reparations," Central European History 11, no. 3 (1978). Richard Ned Lebow, A

Cultural Theory of International Relations (Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press,

2008).

6

stalemate, he rejected withdrawal because, he explained, it would dishonor America’s

commitment.13

Appeal to honor, it seems, is not merely rhetorical or instrumental. In fact, it is not

uncommon for commentators and policymakers of all ideological stripes to turn to

explanations of honor, pride, shame, and humiliation to make sense of global events. For

example, a recent New York Times op-ed by a former spokesman for Iran's nuclear

negotiators explained the importance of honor and prestige in influencing Iranian

incentives.14 Similarly, a recent Wall Street Journal article considered the seemingly

“bizarre” British aggression over the Falklands that can be explained only by recourse to

appreciation for pride and honor.15 As columnist Thomas Friedman put it: “If I’ve learned

one thing covering world affairs, it’s this: The single most underappreciate force in

international relations is humiliation.”16 Friedman was merely echoing something that

that Henry Kissinger wrote decades before: “no serious policymaker could allow himself

to succumb to the fictional debunking of prestige or honor or credibility.”17

The evidence that honor matters goes beyond anecdotes and intuition. It is also

supported by a broad range of disciplines, especially philosophy, theology, literature,

13 Quoted in Dafoe and Caughey, "Honor and War: Using Southern Presidents to Identify Reputational

Effects in International Conflict."

14 Seyed Hossein Mousavian and Mohammad Ali Shabani, “How to Talk to Iran,” The New York Times,

January 4, 2013.

15 Bret Stephens, “Why the Falklands Matter: Pride and principle are no small matters in affairs of state,”

Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2012

16 The Humiliation Factor - New York Times

New York Times (2003). The Humiliation Factor - New York Times. [online] Retrieved from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/09/opinion/the-humiliation-factor.html [Accessed: 3 May 2013].

17 Henry Kissinger, White House Years (Simon & Schuster, 2011), 228

7

history, psychology, sociology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, and ethnography.18

Remarkably, however, international relations scholars have made few attempts to

examine it.

18 For examples, see Tor Aase, Tournaments of Power: Honor and Revenge in the Contemporary World

(Ashgate Pub Limited, 2002); Richard E Nisbett and Dov Cohen, Culture of Honor: The Psychology of

Violence in the South (Westview Press, 1996); Blema S Steinberg, Shame and Humiliation: Presidential

Decision Making on Vietnam (Cambridge Univ Press, 1996).

8

Honor in Theoretical Context

What explains the massive gap between, on the one hand, what is widely

recognized as an important phenomenon in understanding conflict and, on the other hand,

the analytical tendency of international relations to ignore or dismiss it? The answer is

rooted in the theoretical and methodological origin of the modern conception of honor,

represented by the thought of Thomas Hobbes. The theoretical approaches of modern

political science, especially rational choice theory, can be understood as an embrace or

continuation of the normative goals of Hobbes’ political science. These normative goals

effectively conceal any serious understanding of the moral dimensions of honor, and have

contributed to the foundational assumptions across modern IR approaches and paradigms

that favor the primacy of security and materialistic motivations.

9

I. The Roots of Modern Honor

International relations theorists draw on Hobbes as a philosophical

authority on the primacy of security and self-preservation. Yet they usually ignore the

great emphasis on what he saw to be the universal and powerful drive for honor. Without

being fully aware of it, modern political scientists have embraced Hobbes’ normative

intentions that sought to orient political science (and political society) around the goals of

material self-interest. But while modern scholars assume that these goals encompass the

core truth about human needs, Hobbes had no basis for making such assumptions. He

lived at a time when concerns of honor were so obvious that their existence and

worthiness could be taken for granted. In fact, the three principal causes of quarrel for

Hobbes are security, economic gain, and concern for glory or reputation.19 Not

surprisingly, then, one of the most prominent themes of Hobbes’ mature works is the

troublesome and destructive nature of honor-oriented behavior. His project was based on

the belief that it was possible to educate or enlighten men sufficiently so that political

society security and material self-interest as the most important goods that no rational

being should ever sacrifice. As one scholar explains, Thomas Hobbes “represents a clear

turning point in Western society’s conception of honor.”20 Returning to Hobbes reveals

the way in which the modern dismissal of honor stems from an intellectually conditioned,

normative view that peace and security are worthier and more rational than seeking and

maintaining honor.

19“So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly,

diffidence; thirdly, glory.” Thomas Hobbes and Ian Shapiro, Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme, & Power of

a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill (Yale University Press, 2010), Chapter 13.

20 Laurie M Johnson Bagby, Thomas Hobbes: Turning Point for Honor (Lexington Books, 2009).5

10

The pre-modern or pre-Hobbesian understanding of honor nearly equated the

notion with moral behavior. Honor was a motivation, reward, or symbol of behaving

admirably, and that meant behaving in accordance with moral and religious virtue. Both

in ancient, biblical, and medieval thought, behaving honorably was associated with

courage or sacrificing one’s private interests for a transcendent good. Honor therefore

included an underlying belief in a God or cosmic order that exhorts noble self-sacrifice.21

Hobbes’ mature works can be understood as a campaign against this ancient and

medieval view that the purpose of politics is moral fulfillment and the salvation of the

soul.

For Hobbes, an exalted conception of self-fulfillment encourages behavior that

leads to civil strife, including the horrific religious wars of his own day. His famously

brutal picture of the state of nature in the Leviathan seeks to show how dangerous life is

when what vanity and honor inebriates an individual. Honor leads to an exaggerated

sense of self-importance, and to blindness to the most essential good, security.22 Hobbes

therefore sought to show the misguidedness and destructiveness of heroism and religious

martyrdom.

Hobbes disparaged honor by showing that the phenomenon is reducible to

perceptions of power. Honor “is nothing else but the estimation of another’s power; and

therefore he that hath least power, hath always least honour.”23 Power is a kind of

currency that buys human needs and desires. Thus, honor contains no inherent rational

21 “For Hobbes, someone who believes in the reality of honor instead of understanding it as foolish vanity

does not really understand the world and thus plays the part of the fool.” Ibid., 17.

22 Ibid., 5.

23 Thomas Hobbes, De Cive (Kessinger Publishing, 2004), Chapter 14.

11

dignity; it is intelligent only insofar as it contributes to attaining security and material

goods.24 Reason, Hobbes says, is the calculation involved in attaining these basic needs, a

“scout and spy” of the passions that helps individuals fulfill their basest desires and

interests.25

Honor not only has no inherent rational dignity, but also no inherent moral

dignity. As one scholar puts it, for Hobbes, “honor was almost entirely rhetorical, devoid

of moral content.”26 In that spirit, the English philosopher ridiculed the lofty rhetoric and

decorative insignias of the aristocrats on his day as the bogus façade that aggrandizes

power. Honor is ornamental and frivolous because human beings are fundamentally

equal. This equality is evident in the basic fact that every individual is hypothetically

capable of killing another. Once this basic equality is recognized, man can lose the

delusions about seeking fulfillment through virtue and recognize that rational self-interest

is survival. The social contract is the acknowledgment that the government’s foremost

duty is to protect every individual’s basic goods from others.27

In sum, Hobbes argued against the pre-modern notion that honor is duty that

transcends self-interest. He promoted a new conception of honor whose only rational

basis lies in its purchase of attaining the earthly goods of power, security, and economic

24 Laurence Berns, “Thomas Hobbes,” in Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, History of Political Philosophy,

2d ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981).

25 T. Hobbes and A.R. Waller, Leviathan: Or, the Matter, Forme & Power of a Commonwealth,

Ecclesiasticall and Civill (University Press, 1904), 45.

26 Bagby, Thomas Hobbes: Turning Point for Honor, 25.

27 Leo Strauss, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis (University of Chicago

Press, 1963), 23-9; Devin Stauffer, "Reopening the Quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns: Leo

Strauss's Critique of Hobbes's “New Political Science”," American Political Science Review 101, no. 02

(2007).

12

gain. Hobbes’ civic mission was to “enlighten” societies by lowering moral goals,

making them more achievable and realistic, and therefore societies more stable and

peaceful.28

Precisely because Hobbes has been so successful, and his key claims so

internalized in Westerners’ habits of mind, it is difficult to see that the prevailing belief

that security and material goods are the overriding concern of human beings is based on a

normative and polemical project. The idea that basic appetitive goods encompass

individual and collective motivation is a relatively recent phenomenon—and one that is

certainly not accepted universally. As Donald Kagan puts it, “The notion that the only

thing rational or real in the conduct of nations is the search for economic benefits or

physical security is itself a prejudice of our time.”29 It is paradoxical (though, given

Hobbes’ success, not surprising) that Hobbes, who emphasized the irrationality of man,

contributed, through his normative goals, to the massive tendency of political science

toward rationalistic conceptions of human behavior. As a founder of modern political

science, Hobbes’ thought reveals the origin of the scientific disposition to reduce moral

motivations to materialistic motivations.

II. The Limits of Rational Choice Theory in International Relations

The massive appeal of rational choice theory in international relations suggests

that Hobbes’ science continues to be immensely influential. While the theory originated

recently (in the 1950s), rational choice represents “the continuation of the tendency of

28 Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History, Charles R Walgreen Foundation Lectures (Chicago,: University

of Chicago Press, 1953). Mark Lilla, The Stillborn God : Religion, Politics, and the Modern West (New

York: Knopf, 2007).

29 Donald Kagan, "Honor, Interest, and the Nation-State," Honor Among Nations (1998).

13

modern social science following modern natural science to understand complex wholes in

light of their simple elements.”30 By importing economics’ premise that human beings

are rational beings who aim to maximize their utility, rational choice theory explicitly

avoids investigation of the psychological basis of motivations. For rational choice

theorists, evidence against human rationality is irrelevant because, as Anthony Downs

explains, “theoretical models should be tested primarily by the accuracy of their

predictions rather than by the reality of their assumptions.”31 Instead of investigating the

beliefs actors hold at the start of the interaction, the theory focuses on behavior, or

preferences over actions, and seeks to show the conditions under which pattern of actions

emerge.32 Rational choice theory’s focus on predictive accuracy and verifiable relations

rather than examination of human motivations and goals has contributed to its powerful

analytical purchase and embrace in international relations.33

There is nothing inherent in rational choice theory that prevents analysis of non-

rational goals; rational choice theory is agnostic to the origin of preferences. Any

conceivable goal (including a moral, non-material one such as honor) can be entered into

a utility function.34 In practice, however, theorists rarely stray from preconceived

Hobbesian understandings of human goals. Because the origins of preferences are

exogenous, the theory uncritically relies on preconceived modern, economistic

30 Nasser Behnegar, Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the Scientific Study of Politics (University of Chicago

Press, 2003), 24.

31 Anthony Downs, "An Economic Theory of Democracy," (1957), 27.

32 J. Fearon and A. Wendt, "Rationalism V. Constructivism: A Skeptical View," Handbook of

international relations (2002).

33 Duncan Snidal, "Rational Choice and International Relations," 73.

34 J. Fearon and A. Wendt, "Rationalism V. Constructivism: A Skeptical View."

14

understandings of human goals. One reason for this is that these economistic assumptions

are not arbitrary; they are plausible, substantive, and contribute to an understanding of

individual and collective behavior. Another reason is more subconscious and normative:

IR scholars believe in the worthiness of Hobbesian goals. After all, international relations

scholars pick their cases and questions not randomly but in order to understand the causes

of conflict and destruction and to understand what might contribute to peace, cooperation,

and prosperity.35 Indeed, some postmodernists argue that rational choice theory promotes

a certain normative view by uncritically assuming it.36

When rational choice does consider intangible goals, another major limitation of

the theory emerges. Rational choice theorists follow Hobbes in artificially separating

reason and desire. This relies on the assumption that a goal can be separated from the

strategic calculation aimed to achieve it and remain empirically relevant. The problem

with this is that separating means and ends has the consequences of treating all behavior

and speech that is inconsistent with the goal as strategic means or a kind of currency that

is purely instrumental. Rational choice is not concerned with the question of how desires

and reasoning interact and mix in ways that, for example, leads to the actors’ own

confusions and ambiguities about their goals.37

35 Catherine H Zuckert, "On The'rationality'of Rational Choice," Political Psychology (1995).

36 Ibid., 184.

37 Ibid., 190.

15

III. The Limits of Conventional IR Paradigms

There is nothing necessarily “unscientific” about ontological simplifications and

normative assumptions. Still, a lack of self-awareness about smuggling normative

ontology, combined with a commitment to predictive accuracy, can easily distort the rich

complexities of human behavior. As the predominant paradigm of contemporary IR,

realism reflects the costs of sacrificing empirical richness for parsimonious elegance. As

one scholar puts it, “by embracing the notion of homo economicus,” realists have sought

“to ‘operationalize’ a prescriptive political philosophy according to the categories of

contemporary social science and to endow it with predictive power.”38 The ontological

and methodological commitments by realists contributed to the widespread view among

all IR paradigms that beliefs, opinions, and ideologies are merely a smokescreen that

conceal or merely reflect material structures and materialistic motivations.39 Indeed, from

a non-Hobbesian perspective, the divisions among IR paradigms is merely a family

quarrel. Liberalism and Marxism, after all, follow realism’s scientific and ontological

assumptions and reduce motivations (including honor) to the maximization of

materialistic goals.40 According to these paradigms, much of state behavior can be

accounted for by the postulate that security and economic gain drives human behavior.

Realists acknowledge that states are concerned with how they are estimated by

others. However, consistent with their interpretation that power is not only a material but

38 Michael Loriaux, "The Realists and Saint Augustine: Skepticism, Psychology, and Moral Action in

International Relations Thought," International Studies Quarterly (1992).

39 Morgenthau Hans, "Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace," New York

51973(1948), 10, 86-7, 95-6.

40 Michael Tomz, Reputation and International Cooperation: Sovereign Debt across Three Centuries

(Princeton University Press, 2007).

16

also a psychological phenomenon, realists view honor as an instrumental rather than a

moral phenomenon.41 These scholars typically talk not so much of honor as of prestige,

status, or standing—that is, perceptions of power that are ultimately grounded in security

concerns.42 Hans Morgenthau defines prestige as the “reputation for power,” and even

that, he says, is “rarely the primary objective of foreign policy.”43 A similar view is

echoed by John Herz, who writes that “Striving for prestige means striving for

security.”44 Similarly, Robert Gilpin equates prestige with the perception of state’s

power.45 With Kenneth N. Waltz, realism departed even further from the psychological

dimensions of honor. Waltz explicitly abstracts “from every attribute of states except

their capabilities” in order to explain state behavior according to the universal constraints

on states imposed on them by the anarchical structure of the international system.46 When

Waltz does discuss state motivations, he collapses all of them to a desire for wealth and

security.47

More recently, John Mearsheimer has argued that great powers are in an

“unrelenting pursuit of power,” defined largely by material capability, with the goal of

hegemony and for the ultimate sake of survival.48 For Mearsheimer, power is a

41 One exception is Raymond Aron, who takes a more open view to human goals. Raymond Aron, Peace

and War (Cambridge Univ Press, 1966).

42 William C Wohlforth, "Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War," World Politics 61, no.

1 (2009).

43 Hans, "Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace," 10, 94.

44 John H Herz, Political Realism and Political Idealism, a Study in Theories and Realities (University of

Chicago Press, 1951)., 4-5.

45 Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge University Press, 1981), 31.

46 Kenneth Neal Waltz, Theory of International Politics, vol. 5 (McGraw-Hill New York, 1979), 99.

47 Kenneth N Waltz, "Structural Realism after the Cold War," International security 25, no. 1 (2000).

48 J.J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (W. W. Norton, 2003), 2.

17

“currency,” or a “means” to other ends, foremost of which is security.49 Mearsheimer

does not deny that states seek far more than merely security. “In fact,” he says in a buried

footnote, “it is uncertainty about whether those non-security causes of war are at play, or

might come into play, that pushes great power to worry about their survival and thus act

offensively.”50 This raises the question of whether security is sought for its own sake, or

whether it is itself a “currency,” for example, for the maintenance and promotion of a

certain regime or conception of justice. If so, this would help explain why Mearsheimer

himself does not hesitate to make harsh normative judgments about illiberal regimes.51

Unfortunately, Mearsheimer, like most of his intellectual kindred, leaves utterly

unexamined what motivates states. For realists, it is enough for a theory to arrive at

accurate predictions through plausible assumptions.

The inadequacies of conventional paradigms has fueled fresh doubts about the

usefulness of thinking in terms of paradigms.52 It has also contributed to the growing

movement of constructivism that seeks to underline the pitfalls of materialism.53

However, despite their fruitful criticisms, constructivists tend to focus on interaction and

do not attempt to understand the intellectual and psychological character of phenomena

they typically refer to as socialization, ideas, or identity.54 Indeed, some constructivist

49 Ibid., 12, 60.

50 Ibid., 414, n.8.

51 Ibid., 217, 401.

52 David A Lake, "Why “Isms” Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to

Understanding and Progress," International Studies Quarterly 55, no. 2 (2011).

53 Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge University Press, 1999).

54 For example, Martha Finnemore argues shows how the Genovese-Swiss banker Henry Dunant had a

major impact on establishing humanitarian norms and the International Committee of the Red Cross. She

does not, however, attempt to understand the intellectual origin of Dunant’s own understanding. Martha

18

and rationalist scholars argue, with some justification, that the difference between

constructivism and rational choice is largely overblown.55

What lessons can be taken from the limits of mainstream methodologies and

paradigms in studying motivations in international relations? At least in the conventional

positivist sense, there is no way to “prove” the existence of any motivation. There is

therefore little point in ruling out any methodologies or paradigms because they fail to

confirm specific motivations. Every approach must make “methodological bets” that

confront certain tradeoffs, for example, between messy but rich detail and abstract but

elegant theories.56 However, a good case can be made that examining the importance of

honor as an irreducible moral phenomenon is best achieved through a method that

embraces the complicated messiness of human behavior, and tries to observe the multiple

psychological dimensions of its apparent manifestation. The method of process tracing,

whereby cases are broken into a series of observations, is perhaps a particularly

promising way to undertake such a study.57 There are, of course, significant downsides to

such an approach.58 Nevertheless, process tracing could help adjudicate among

alternative hypotheses about motivations that so far go largely unexamined in the field.59

One potential path is to devise artificial, paradigmatic models that assume the primacy of

Finnemore, National Interests in International Society, Cornell Studies in Political Economy (Ithaca, N.Y.:

Cornell University Press, 1996).

55 Fearon and Wendt, "Rationalism V. Constructivism: A Skeptical View."

56 David A Lake, "The State and International Relations," The Oxford Handbook of International

Relations, pbk (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) (2007).

57 Stephen Van Evera, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science (Cornell University Press,

1997), 77

58 These include the problem of infinite regress. Gary King, Robert O Keohane, and Sidney Verba,

Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research (Princeton University Press, 1994),

86.

59 Andrew Bennett, "Process Tracing and Causal Inference," (2010), 208.

19

security interests and economic gain. Doing so in specific historical cases could help

illuminate the inadequacy of these motivations and the importance of building a more

coherent understanding of honor.

20

Conclusion

The premise of this report is the gap between, on the one hand, the apparent

omnipresence of honor, and, on the other hand, its relative absence in the field of

international relations. The paper summarized the conceptual transition from pre-modern

to modern honor in order to show the roots of the prevailing ontological and

methodological beliefs about honor and honor’s significance (and non-significance) in

international relations. The limits of conventional methodologies and paradigms conveys

that the study of honor in in international relations must begin from a fresh examination

of the phenomenon. The first task must be to establish that honor actually matters, and to

cast doubt that existing theories for their failure to notice or appreciate the phenomenon.

This report attempted to take the first step by problematizing common assumptions in IR

and encouraging a renewed openness to studying motivations. The hope is that the

arguments here could raise new research questions, while encouraging a more flexible

and creative approach to studying motives in international relations.

21

Bibliography

Aase, Tor. Tournaments of Power: Honor and Revenge in the Contemporary World.

Ashgate Pub Limited, 2002.

Abrams, E., and D. Kagan. Honor among Nations: Intangible Interests and Foreign

Policy. Ethics & Public Policy Center, 1998.

Aron, Raymond. Peace and War. Cambridge Univ Press, 1966.

Bagby, Laurie M Johnson. Thomas Hobbes: Turning Point for Honor. Lexington Books,

2009.

Behnegar, Nasser. Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the Scientific Study of Politics.

University of Chicago Press, 2003.

Bennett, Andrew. "Process Tracing and Causal Inference." (2010).

Bowman, James. Honor: A History. Encounter Books, 2007.

Dafoe, Allan, and Devin M Caughey. "Honor and War: Using Southern Presidents to

Identify Reputational Effects in International Conflict." Berkeley, CA: University

of California, Berkeley (2011).

Downs, Anthony. "An Economic Theory of Democracy." (1957).

Fearon, J., and A. Wendt. "Rationalism V. Constructivism: A Skeptical View."

Handbook of international relations (2002): 52-72.

Finnemore, Martha. National Interests in International Society. Cornell Studies in

Political Economy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1996.

Gilpin, Robert. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Goldsmith, J., and E. Posner. "Moral and Legal Rhetoric in International Relations: A

Rational Choice Perspective." U Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working

Paper, no. 108 (2000).

Hans, Morgenthau. "Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace." New

York 51973 (1948).

Hanson, Victor Davis, and Robert B Strassler. The Landmark Thucydides: A

Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. Free Press, 1998.

Herz, John H. Political Realism and Political Idealism, a Study in Theories and Realities.

University of Chicago Press, 1951.

Hobbes, T., and A.R. Waller. Leviathan: Or, the Matter, Forme & Power of a

Commonwealth, Ecclesiasticall and Civill. University Press, 1904.

Hobbes, Thomas. De Cive. Kessinger Publishing, 2004.

———. Leviathan: Or the Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall

and Civill. Yale University Press, 2010.

Joshi, S. "Honor in International Relations." Working Paper, 2008.

Kagan, Donald. "Honor, Interest, and the Nation-State." Honor Among Nations (1998):

1.

———. On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace. New York: Doubleday,

1995.

King, Gary, Robert O Keohane, and Sidney Verba. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific

Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press, 1994.

Kissinger, Henry. White House Years. Simon & Schuster, 2011.

22

Krause, Sharon R. Liberalism with Honor. Harvard University Press, 2002.

Lake, David A. "The State and International Relations." The Oxford Handbook of

International Relations, pbk (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) (2007): 41-

61.

———. "Why “Isms” Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as

Impediments to Understanding and Progress1." International Studies Quarterly

55, no. 2 (2011): 465-80.

Lebow, Richard Ned. "Fear, Interest and Honour: Outlines of a Theory of International

Relations." International Affairs 82, no. 3 (2006): 431-48.

———. A Cultural Theory of International Relations. Cambridge, UK ; New York:

Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Loriaux, Michael. "The Realists and Saint Augustine: Skepticism, Psychology, and Moral

Action in International Relations Thought." International Studies Quarterly

(1992): 401-20.

Mansfield, Harvey Claflin. Manliness. Yale University Press, 2006.

Marks, Sally. "The Myths of Reparations." Central European History 11, no. 3 (1978):

231-55.

McNamara, Peter. The Noblest Minds: Fame, Honor, and the American Founding.

Rowman & Littlefield, 1999.

Mearsheimer, J.J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton, 2003.

Nisbett, Richard E, and Dov Cohen. Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the

South. Westview Press, 1996.

O'Neill, B. "Mediating National Honour: Lessons from the Era of Dueling." Journal of

Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte

Staatswissenschaft (2003): 229-47.

Pangle, Thomas L. "Interpretive Essay." Thomas L. Pangle The Laws of Plato, New York:

Basic Books (1980): 375-510.

Snidal, Duncan. "Rational Choice and International Relations." Handbook of

international relations 73 (2002): 74-76.

Stauffer, Devin. "Reopening the Quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns: Leo

Strauss's Critique of Hobbes's “New Political Science”." American Political

Science Review 101, no. 02 (2007): 223-33.

Steinberg, Blema S. Shame and Humiliation: Presidential Decision Making on Vietnam.

Cambridge Univ Press, 1996.

Strauss, Leo. Natural Right and History. Charles R Walgreen Foundation Lectures.

Chicago,: University of Chicago Press, 1953.

———. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis. University of

Chicago Press, 1963.

Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy. 2d ed. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1981.

Tomz, Michael. Reputation and International Cooperation: Sovereign Debt across Three

Centuries. Princeton University Press, 2007.

Trachtenberg, M. "Reparation at the Paris Peace Conference." The Journal of Modern

History (1979): 24-55.

23

Van Evera, Stephen. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Cornell

University Press, 1997.

Waltz, Kenneth N. "Structural Realism after the Cold War." International security 25, no.

1 (2000): 5-41.

———. Theory of International Politics. Vol. 5: McGraw-Hill New York, 1979.

Wendt, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press,

1999.

Wohlforth, William C. "Unipolarity, Status Competition, and Great Power War." World

Politics 61, no. 1 (2009): 28-57.

Wolf, R. "Respect and Disrespect in International Politics: The Significance of Status

Recognition." International Theory 3, no. 1 (2011): 105-42.

Zuckert, Catherine H. "On The'rationality'of Rational Choice." Political Psychology

(1995): 179-98.